The MidTerm Elections thread (2018)

[pr0ner]

On the one hand, this is yet another nail in the coffin of the coup against Pelosi. On the other hand it's a backhanded compliment, implying that the party is "conservative" and "bent towards corporate interests".

She's already come out and said more people as progressive as she is should come out and primary "traditional" Democrats for 2020.

[Defiant]

I wouldn't describe the Democratic party as "conservative" in any way, shape, or form, even on a global scale. And, while sections of the party are "bent towards corporate interests", I would say that the party as a whole is bent towards union and non-corporate interests. Take a look at the Republican party if you want to see a party bent towards corporate interests (well, maybe not in the last couple of years where it seems bent towards hatred and power for the sake of power)

[Kraken]

On the one hand, this is yet another nail in the coffin of the coup against Pelosi. On the other hand it's a backhanded compliment, implying that the party is "conservative" and "bent towards corporate interests".

The two Massholes voting No on Pelosi are Lynch, who is definitely conservative for a D (and my representative, unfortunately), and Moulton, who looks in the mirror and sees a president looking back. IDK all of Moulton's policy positions, but I don't think anyone confuses him with a progressive.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wouldn't describe the Democratic party as "conservative" in any way, shape, or form, even on a global scale.

I would disagree on the global scale part. If you compare the US Democratic party with the most left (viable) party in other parts of the "developed" world (Canada, Australia, EU28, etc) I think you would find USA Democrats to the right of them in most cases, and by quite a bit. In some of the EU countries, they would even be more "conservative" than the right party.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm not a huge Pelosi fan, and she is reliable ammunition for the GOP, but at the same time she gets credit for the Blue Wave. I can understand the hesitation to swap out what worked in 2018 for an unknown in 2020.

It would be pretty bonkers to swap out Pelosi now. Everything I've read indicates that she's a great majority leader (and she's held the Democratic caucus pretty unified throughout her term - *much* more unified than Senate democrats). The main downside, such as it is, is that a decade plus of Republican attack ads has made her a little politically radioactive.

But given those, it's the worst case scenario to swap her out *after* the election, once you've already secured the majority. At that point you need an effective majority leader, not a political figurehead. If they were going to swap her out, the time to do that is before the election.

I would be happy if Pelosi got the speakership, but indicated that she would make way for another Democratic leader after 2020. Would also give the Democrats time to figure out who the next leader is going to be.

I've stated my distaste for Pelosi before, but I've changed my stance slightly after more thought.

1. Who would replace her? Do we have anyone ready to go, that's kind of been "waiting in the wings" to replace her? Don't think so. I think it would be a mistake to put a rookie in as speaker for obvious reasons. You likely have to hold a LOT of cards, and have a huge network of people you can call on a dime on both sides of the aisle. That takes time, of course, and political capital is not built up instantly. A "new face" would have none of that.

2. Not only does she get credit for the Blue Wave (I guess), more importantly (to me) is that she was the engine behind Obamacare passing, and if not for her, the thing would have been even more watered down, or not passed at all. I had kind of forgotten about that, but she was basically willing to die on the Obamacare hill as it were. Respect for that.

I still don't like her seemingly flippant style and out of touch, fake demeanor, but I also bet she's a completely different person when working behind closed doors. Probably a bulldog. FWIW the overt insincerity of HRC was my biggest beef with her, so I kind of lump them together (Johns Kerry and Edwards also had that particular fakeness that makes my eye twitch when I hear or see them speak)

[Holman]

2. Not only does she get credit for the Blue Wave (I guess), more importantly (to me) is that she was the engine behind Obamacare passing, and if not for her, the thing would have been even more watered down, or not passed at all. I had kind of forgotten about that, but she was basically willing to die on the Obamacare hill as it were. Respect for that.

This is crucial.

A lot of Dem standard-bearers (even e.g. Barney Frank, whom I like a lot) were ready to give up on the ACA and counseled Obama to do so, but Pelosi fought for the votes and made it happen.

The ACA cost the Dems the House in 2010, but its protections save millions of Americans. Now that the ACA has won back the House in 2018, it would be perverse and stupid to punish Pelosi for it.

[Defiant]

I wouldn't describe the Democratic party as "conservative" in any way, shape, or form, even on a global scale.

I would disagree on the global scale part. If you compare the US Democratic party with the most left (viable) party in other parts of the "developed" world (Canada, Australia, EU28, etc) I think you would find USA Democrats to the right of them in most cases, and by quite a bit. In some of the EU countries, they would even be more "conservative" than the right party.

Well, now you're limiting it to the developed world.

I would agree that the Democrats aren't as far to the left as many of the left-wing parties in Europe - partly that's due to the country as a whole is indeed a degree or two more to the right of most of Europe, and partly that you have more parties in countries in Europe, while the Democratic party is more of an umbrella party encompassing different groups from the center left to the leftwing (you'll also notice that the Republican party (at least prior to Trump) isn't as rightwing as some of the far right parties in some of those countries, either. And while you may dismiss them as not-viable, they appear to be gaining strength)

But I still don't think the Democratic party is conservative in any substantial way.

[El Guapo]

2. Not only does she get credit for the Blue Wave (I guess), more importantly (to me) is that she was the engine behind Obamacare passing, and if not for her, the thing would have been even more watered down, or not passed at all. I had kind of forgotten about that, but she was basically willing to die on the Obamacare hill as it were. Respect for that.

This is crucial.

A lot of Dem standard-bearers (even e.g. Barney Frank, whom I like a lot) were ready to give up on the ACA and counseled Obama to do so, but Pelosi fought for the votes and made it happen.

The ACA cost the Dems the House in 2010, but its protections save millions of Americans. Now that the ACA has won back the House in 2018, it would be perverse and stupid to punish Pelosi for it.

Yeah, and that's another way that she's demonstrated her skill as a speaker. Passing the ACA really did cost the Democrats in 2010 - Nate Silver did an estimate that something like 20ish House democrats probably lost their seat in 2010 because of their vote for the ACA. And she managed to hold her caucus together and get it passed, even though it probably wasn't in many of their short-term interests.

[Pyperkub]

[URL=Ihttps://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11 ... -bush-plan]t's not just Pelosi's leadership on the ACA: [/URL]

her reputation as a shrewd and effective leader dates back to the huge fight over privatizing Social Security in the mid-aughts. At the time, the Democratic Party’s fundamental political position looked more precarious — and Pelosi successfully held her party together against chipping away at one of the greatest party achievements in American history.

Wisdom and leadership. More than ever it's what we need, and she did it by doing... nothing.

Pretty darned amazing, IMHO, and exactly the kind of leadership which is needed now.

Trump will flail about and the wisdom to both play him and let him hang himself is exactly what is needed now, as well as the competency and leadership to make it even more obvious.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wouldn't describe the Democratic party as "conservative" in any way, shape, or form, even on a global scale.

I would disagree on the global scale part. If you compare the US Democratic party with the most left (viable) party in other parts of the "developed" world (Canada, Australia, EU28, etc) I think you would find USA Democrats to the right of them in most cases, and by quite a bit. In some of the EU countries, they would even be more "conservative" than the right party.

Well, now you're limiting it to the developed world.

I would agree that the Democrats aren't as far to the left as many of the left-wing parties in Europe - partly that's due to the country as a whole is indeed a degree or two more to the right of most of Europe, and partly that you have more parties in countries in Europe, while the Democratic party is more of an umbrella party encompassing different groups from the center left to the leftwing (you'll also notice that the Republican party (at least prior to Trump) isn't as rightwing as some of the far right parties in some of those countries, either. And while you may dismiss them as not-viable, they appear to be gaining strength)

But I still don't think the Democratic party is conservative in any substantial way.

Very good points, all. And yes, my limiting to the developed (from your 'global') world significantly changed the math on it. I respectfully pick up my glove from the floor.

[Smoove_B]

NBC News calls UT-04: Ben McAdams (D) is the apparent winner in Utah House 4. Democrat Gain. The Democrats have a net gain of 39 seats in the House. —@NBCPolitics

[Carpet_pissr]

Jesus, how long are these going to trickle in? Not complaining (esp. in this case!), just astounded that some of these are just now being settled. I wonder how many more are in play still?

[El Guapo]

Jesus, how long are these going to trickle in? Not complaining (esp. in this case!), just astounded that some of these are just now being settled. I wonder how many more are in play still?

Almost done! The main one remaining is CA-21, where a few networks called it for the Republican incumbent (Valadao) on election night, but whose lead in the battle counting has been shrinking dramatically, and I believe is now <1,000 votes over the Democratic challenger (Cox). I think the expectation is that Cox will probably ultimately pass Valadao and win, making it an even 40 for the Democrats.

I think that's the only remaining district where the outcome is still in doubt.

[Fireball]

Jesus, how long are these going to trickle in? Not complaining (esp. in this case!), just astounded that some of these are just now being settled. I wonder how many more are in play still?

The only race left to be called is California District 21, where the Republican incumbent has a ~450 vote lead with 15,000 votes left to be counted. This race was called for the Republican on election night, but has gotten dramatically closer as mail ballots have been counted.

House Majority Tracker

[El Guapo]

BAM!

[GreenGoo]

Not complaining (esp. in this case!)

What pisses me off is that you actually have to care about what's happening in California and other places not in your immediate vicinity.

If the GOP wasn't such a morally bankrupt nightmare with an insecure and possibly mentally damaged child as president, you could just accept that there are Republicans and there are Democrats and while you might agree with one more than the other, it's not now IMPERATIVE that one side win to prevent the decline and possible destruction of the entirety of America's democracy.

It's just so fucked up that it matter this much, I guess is my point.

Normally I'd be like "Oh, California-21 wants a Republican? That's cool. I hope it works out for them"

Now I'm like "any vote for a Republican is a show of support for the current administration, and that's unacceptable, and, quite frankly, horrifying".

edit: "not" is not "now"

[coopasonic]

it's not IMPERATIVE that one side win to prevent the decline and possible destruction of the entirety of America's democracy.

not really "prevent the decline" but more like "have some opportunity to mitigate the damage"

[Fireball]

It is so annoying to watch Republicans freak out whenever late-counted mail ballots tilt an election to the Democratic candidate. Trump and his lies about "voter fraud" are encouraging many in the GOP to claim that any defeat is fraudulent, and I don't see how our democracy can survive this sort of dishonesty.

[Holman]

Link.

[Holman]

Also this: 2018's was the largest margin of victory in the House by any party ever.

While votes are still being tallied, Democratic House candidates currently hold an 8,805,130 vote lead over Republicans as of Monday morning. The Democrats' national margin of victory in House contests smashes the previous midterms record of 8.7 million votes in 1974, won just months after President Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace amid the Watergate scandal.

Is it a wave yet?

[malchior]

Also this: 2018's was the largest margin of victory in the House by any party ever.

While votes are still being tallied, Democratic House candidates currently hold an 8,805,130 vote lead over Republicans as of Monday morning. The Democrats' national margin of victory in House contests smashes the previous midterms record of 8.7 million votes in 1974, won just months after President Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace amid the Watergate scandal.

Is it a wave yet?

Terrible stat is a terrible stat. The registered voting population has nearly doubled since then. The margin of victory in 1974 and 2018 was 17% versus 8%. As an aside, that headline is a tad overstated. They "smashed" a 43-year old record by about 1% in absolute terms.

(But yes it was a wave!)

[GreenGoo]

As an aside, that headline is a tad overstated. They "smashed" a 43-year old record by about 1% in absolute terms.

I also had this thought. I was like, that's a 100,000 vote different, right? That's like 0.5% (I'm not good with math apparently) right? Talking about "smashing" a record. I then thought about what "smashing" the 100m record would look like, realized it would be a similarly small percentage so I was like, I'll let the hyperbole go.

Hah.

[Defiant]

The Republican won in Mississippi, but by only 7-8% (so far. There's still 1% of precincts to report in), which is amazingly low for MS. Normally, you would expect the Republican to win by ~20%.

[Alefroth]

The results from my GOP gerrymandered state legislative district were certified today after a recount. .08% stopped the Dems from completely flipping it. They did flip one house seat at least.

[gbasden]

The Republican won in Mississippi, but by only 7-8% (so far. There's still 1% of precincts to report in), which is amazingly low for MS. Normally, you would expect the Republican to win by ~20%.

Of course Mississippi sent back the unrepentant white supremacist who made lynching jokes. Why wouldn't they.

[Fireball]

The results from my GOP gerrymandered state legislative district were certified today after a recount. .08% stopped the Dems from completely flipping it. They did flip one house seat at least.

How did the GOP gerrymander a state legislative district in Washington? Your state has a redistricting commission.

[Alefroth]

The results from my GOP gerrymandered state legislative district were certified today after a recount. .08% stopped the Dems from completely flipping it. They did flip one house seat at least.

How did the GOP gerrymander a state legislative district in Washington? Your state has a redistricting commission.

Point taken. It wasn't gerrymandered by the GOP, but it was largely in their favor.

[Carpet_pissr]

The Republican won in Mississippi, but by only 7-8% (so far. There's still 1% of precincts to report in), which is amazingly low for MS. Normally, you would expect the Republican to win by ~20%.

I think you could only make that argument if there weren't significant gaffes by either candidate (or both). In this case, the (R) had some serious gaffes, but in SPITE of that, won.

[Holman]

The Republican won in Mississippi, but by only 7-8% (so far. There's still 1% of precincts to report in), which is amazingly low for MS. Normally, you would expect the Republican to win by ~20%.

I think you could only make that argument if there weren't significant gaffes by either candidate (or both). In this case, the (R) had some serious gaffes, but in SPITE of that, won.

Were her "gaffes" really so different from what MS voters usually hear from their GOP politicians? This year they got national coverage because the seat was actually in play, but only Mississippians got to vote.

[Carpet_pissr]

Were her "gaffes" really so different from what MS voters usually hear from their GOP politicians? This year they got national coverage because the seat was actually in play, but only Mississippians got to vote.

I have no idea. Do we have anyone from MS on the board? Good point, though.

[El Guapo]

The Republican won in Mississippi, but by only 7-8% (so far. There's still 1% of precincts to report in), which is amazingly low for MS. Normally, you would expect the Republican to win by ~20%.

I think you could only make that argument if there weren't significant gaffes by either candidate (or both). In this case, the (R) had some serious gaffes, but in SPITE of that, won.

Were her "gaffes" really so different from what MS voters usually hear from their GOP politicians? This year they got national coverage because the seat was actually in play, but only Mississippians got to vote.

Gaffes are very different from real "scandals". Hyde-Smith had gaffes, but no real scandals. She's a bad candidate, but far from a Roy Moore type.

[gilraen]

CA-21 race all but called for the Democrat, which would mean Dems pick up their 40th seat in the House.

[Holman]

Do we have anyone from MS on the board?

Hattiesburg is my family seat, but I can't claim to have followed MS elections when I didn't vote in them.

[Max Peck]

Democrats Pick Nancy Pelosi As House Speaker, Despite Earlier Internal Opposition

House Democrats nominated Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to serve as the next speaker of the House. If approved by the full House, Pelosi would again wield the gavel in January — a dozen years after she became the first female speaker in 2007.

The vote was 203 voting for Pelosi, 32 opposing her and three members leaving their ballot blank. One member was absent.

After more than a year of party angst about needing fresh and younger faces in leadership, House Democrats will almost certainly emerge from their internal caucus election with the same three people in its top three posts: Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn.

The secret Democratic ballot is the first of two key elections Pelosi needs to win to officially become the first House speaker since Sam Rayburn to hold the post then go into the minority and then win the job again. Pelosi was speaker from 2007 to 2011, the last time the Democrats held the chamber.

The full House of Representatives will formally vote on its next speaker on Jan. 3, the first day of Congress' next session.

Are we still going to be seeing emo drama about Speaker Pelosi right up to the final vote in the new year?

[GreenGoo]

Are we still going to be seeing emo drama about Speaker Pelosi right up to the final vote in the new year?

I think that's the nature of politics, unfortunately.

[Defiant]

[malchior]

The NY Times has pretty significant institutional biases. I'm not even sure the Times knows about them. I like that people are increasingly putting together the evidence. For example, their "but her emails" coverage was significantly lopsided and over-stated. And where they go most follow in the smaller markets so they bear significant responsibility to address those biases.

[El Guapo]

Certification in limbo in N.C. House race as fraud investigation continues.

Apparently there are credible allegations of fraud with absentee ballots in NC-9 (which the Republican incumbent won by ~ 900 votes) in Bladen County, NC. Basically people going around taking absentee ballots from people. The Republican won 96% of the absentee ballots in that county, and that county is the only one where Republicans improved their percentage of the vote from 2016:

[Isgrimnur]

There are so many races to look at, it's easy to forget to just pause, take a breath, smell the flowers, and savor the special Fuck You delivered to Scott Walker last night.

Common Dreams

As Wisconsin's GOP-controlled legislature and outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker seek to thwart the will of voters by ramming through a sweeping slate of legislation that would drastically curtail Democratic governor-elect Tony Evers' authority and ability to implement his agenda, progressive advocacy groups announced emergency rallies on Monday to fight back against the GOP's latest "shocking and naked power grab."

"This is straight out of a banana republic and should be a huge national story," Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman said of the GOP plan, which would strip Evers' power to approve decisions by the newly elected Democratic state attorney general and hand this authority over to the Republican legislature.
...
In addition to stripping Evers' authority, the GOP's sweeping plan—which the Wisconsin legislature could vote on as early as Tuesday—also seeks to restict voting rights by limiting early voting to no more than two weeks before an election. At present, some parts of the state allow for as much as six weeks of early voting.

As Wikler noted, the GOP's legislation could force Evers to implement punitive Trump-approved Medicaid work requirements, stop him from banning guns from the state capitol, and bar him from taking legal action to defend safety net programs from Republican attacks.
...
Responding to the GOP power grab, Evers said in an interview on Saturday that he is considering legal action to prevent Republicans from stripping his authority.

"I view this as a repudiation of the last election," Evers told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I will take any steps possible to assure the people of Wisconsin that I will not invalidate those votes. And frankly, I'm encouraging citizens across the state of Wisconsin to help me in that effort."

[Ralph-Wiggum]

This is the same sort of stunt that the GOP tried in NC after the 2016 election. I think (?) the NC Supreme Court ended up ruling that those actions violated the NC constitution. I'm guessing any news laws that are passed may also wind up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.